I recently purchased the words of light and life dogmatic theology collection. The author is teaching something about christ existing as a man before his incarnation as the son of man. Can anyone please clarify this for me?
Could you please reference the section that you read that in?
it is in volume two, chapter two.
Can anyone please clarify this for me?
It all depends which occurrence they may be referring to. Was it in the Garden of Eden, walking in the cool of the evening? Or perhaps they were saying Melchizedek was Jesus? Genesis 14:18-20 , Wiki also has an article on the Melchisedechians.
he is teaching that it was from his eternal generation that he was a glorified man.
[^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]
Does the resource offer any Scriptural evidence for such a theory?
Wouldn't the question be, was Jesus the Son of God before the incarnation? He is not denying His eternal deity, but saying that by nature He was and is and is evermore the revelation of God to us (i.e. in a form we can relate to). (I hope I am not putting words in the author's mouth)
Pastor Jesse Blevins asked
""The author is teaching something about Christ existing as a man before his incarnation as the son of man. Can anyone please clarify this for me? ""
""it is in volume two, chapter two. ""
2 CHRIST AS GOD-MAN
This duality mentioned regarding Christ, is elaborated upon in statements like the following: He is the Son of David, but He is also the Lord of David (Matt 22:41–45). He is the Son of God (Matt 16:16), but also the Son of man (Matt 8:20; 9:6; 25:13). He is the only-begotten Son of God (John 3:16), but also the Son of Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:16. John 1:45). vol. 2, The Wonderful Christ and the Meaning of Humanness (Christology and Anthropology), Words of light and life
Is that the section you are asking about??
Christ has always been the only way, truth and life through which we can go to God (John 14:6). There was never a time when He was not. And if He had always been the way, the truth, and the life, it follows that He always also had to be the God-man, and not only during the last days of human history.
Moller, F. P. (1998). Vol. 2: The wonderful Christ and the meaning of humanness (Christology and anthropology). Words of light and life. Pretoria: Van Schaik Religious Books.
The Bible not only says that everything came into existence through the Word (Son of God), but that everything was created unto Him and that He maintains it all (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17). This relationship between God and creation through Christ being also man, exists from the beginning of creation. Therefore, Christ becoming man could not have taken place only long after creation and in these last days of human time.
In Colossians 2:9 we read that in Him, i.e. in Christ, dwells all the fulness of the God-head bodily (sômatikôs). If this pronouncement is valid only for these last days when Christ appeared in the flesh, and according to the Council of Chalcedon only then received a body, we must accept that the fulness of the God-head did not previously dwell in Christ, but that there must have existed a different relationship between Him and the Father. No, we must rather believe that the fulness of the God-head dwelled bodily in Christ since all eternity in Christ. It is only through Christ that we as believers will become complete, sharing in that which is divine. In Colossians 2:10 it is stated: “… and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power”.
Christ has always been the only way, truth and life through which we can go to God (John 14:6). There was never a time when He was not. And if He had always been the way, the truth, and the life, it follows that He always also had to be the God-man, and not only during the last days of human history. Moller, F. P. (1998). Vol. 2: The wonderful Christ and the meaning of humanness (Christology and anthropology). Words of light and life. Pretoria: Van Schaik Religious Books.
That would be problematic.
The fact that he was since all eternity also Man, i.e. having creature form, should be seen as basis for his incarnation and why He could completely identify with man as creature. After all, man was created in the image of the Son of God, which constitutes a direct link between humanity and Christ.
If Christ only became man with his birth of Mary, and was not God-Man since all eternity, what was He before this event? If He were then just God, in what respect did He differ from God the Father, and if He was only spirit, in what respect did He then differ from the Holy Spirit? If He was only Word (Logos) and not the Son of God, what was He, besides just the word or speech of God? In John 1:14 it is after all plainly said that the Word is the same as the Firstborn, coming from God the Father, i.e. the Son of God. If “Son of God” only came into being during our human time, how then must we contemplate the eternal Trinity?
Are you sure you don't mean Chapter 1 part 2 (Christ as God-Man), and following (especially Chapter 1 parts 3 & 4)? Check with the Locator bar and/or the Contents panel ("Show table of Contents) to confirm.
This quote (from Chapter 1 part 4.14) seems to summarize his point:
Therefore, we repeatedly say that the fact that Christ identify Himself with the fallen and transient humanity through being born of a woman and after which He suffered and died in the flesh, is not a denial of the fact that He is the God-Man since all eternity. The fact that he was since all eternity also Man, i.e. having creature form, should be seen as basis for his incarnation and why He could completely identify with man as creature. F. P. Moller, vol. 2, The Wonderful Christ and the Meaning of Humanness (Christology and Anthropology), Words of light and life (Pretoria: Van Schaik Religious Books, 1998).
He is making a very unique claim her. By 'very unique claim' I mean this view is not held by others whose views are considered orthodox. At least, I've never heard this claim before.
Hopefully these excerpts give you some insight into my question. I have been a lifetime student of the bible and theology. Perhaps his teaching comes the closest to what the Mormons believe about God.
Any other thoughts? Explanations?
And to answer my own question...No he doesn't have Scriptural evidence for such a theory.
One might be wise to consider the criticism of Dr. Moller, written by members of his own denomination. This should eliminate the argument that it is a witch hunt.
http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj16/clark.html
http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/godchrist.php
Does anyone out there believe that Logos should be responsible for at least not making any books available with such clear heretical teaching such as this one?
I thought that I was purchasing a sound, biblical, study of dogmatic theology from a pentecostal perspective. I was very happy when I purchased this set during the 12 days of Christmas special - now I feel like a kid with a broken toy just a view days after receiving it.
Hopefully this post will keep others from purchasing this set in the future. I personally would like to see it pulled in my humble opinion.
Heresy is in the eye of the beholder. For the record, my eye sees it as you do. However, I doubt Logos will take on the responsibility of policing the content of resources. I do believe that if you contact customer service and state your case, you will be issued a refund.
No. I don't think Logos should be responsible for making sure that books align with a certain theological persuasion. Who would be the authority? And what happens when their standard excludes books you want? I want to be able to read and search books I disagree with to better understand opposing arguments and make my own beliefs better defined.
I would think Philippians 2:5 - 8 would settle the issue (from the NASB95):
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
At some point in eternity past, He existed as God. He gave up that equality with God to take the form of a man.
Certainly Christ is the Lord in the Old Testament who appeared on earth on numerous occasions. But it wasn't in the form of a man as when he was virgin born. Think about this question: If He existed as a man in eternity past, was it a full-grown man? Did He reverse age to become an infant?
My $.02 ...
Donnie
Todd, I see your point. I like to read broadly and to understand other viewpoints all across the theological perspective (liberal to conservative) but this work clearly delves into heresy without any warning of what is coming.
Again, I must state that I thought that I was purchasing an Orthodox study of Pentecostal theology. If I knew that it was not orthodox I would not have purchased it.
The fact that he has such a heretical view in his Christology makes me suspect that this heretical view will also have an effect on all of his theology, especially since he says in the preface that his aim was for it be a a dogmatic study strictly from a Christological perspective. His Christology is heretical so that makes me believe that his teaching on the other branches of theology such as ecclesiology, soteriology, anthropology, will also be affected.
I post this in peace my brother. Thanks to everyone out there for the help. I just want to post this for any others that may think of purchasing this collection in the future. I did a search on it before I bought it and could not find anything out there about it, not even on google.
I want to be able to read and search books I disagree with to better understand opposing arguments and make my own beliefs better defined.
I agree...to a point. If the writer can offer a sliver of Biblical evidence for the theory they are putting forth, There can be a fruitful discussion. If it is sheer speculation, I don't have time for it. 2 Peter 1:20
Pastor Jesse, I too struggled with this idea a year ago....but I"ve come to agree with Todd....
I want to be able to read and search books I disagree with to better understand opposing arguments and make my own beliefs better defined. I agree...to a point. If the writer can offer a sliver of Biblical evidence for the theory they are putting forth, There can be a fruitful discussion. If it is sheer speculation, I don't have time for it. 2 Peter 1:20
Surely, I agree. (To a point...even speculation must first be determined to actually be speculation--one has to read it first). But that was only one of my reasons for not wanting Logos to become the arbiter of good and bad books.
Did He reverse age to become an infant?
He is fully capable of that. The bigger question is, Why would He? His 30-some years in human form were for a very specific reason. If one Could believe that He had always been human, the impact of His sacrifice would be reduced to almost nil.
I Digress. [:)]
Here is some good news for you: You can get a refund from Logos. Just give Customer Service a call.
Here is some bad news for you: Logos will not start pulling titles from their product line when a few users object to their availability. There are many different perspectives in the theological world and I personally find a large portion of them heretical. Others would brand some of my beliefs off-base or heretical. The best two things you can do for others as a Pastor is 1) Preach the truth and 2) Warn then that men can and will be wrong, sometimes very wrong.
There have been a few passionate threads where posters wanted Logos to have some kind of theological screening before bringing a resource to publication. First I don't think Logos has the manpower and ability to read everything they are publishing and evaluate the content. Logos probably assumes if there is a lot of requests for a certain author those making the requests are aware of some value in the work. The very fact this thread exists shows it is sometimes hard to pin down a man's theology even whilst reading it.
Logos is not attempting to tell us what to think. For that I am happy.
[6] Have you noticed I did not use possibly divisive issues like Predestination/Free Will? Speaking in Tongues? Reality of Hell? Universal Salvation? Catholicism/Protestantism/Orthodoxy/Fundamentalism? Pre-/Post-/A-Millennialism? Rapture? Tribulation? [:@] (you see why) [;)]
He is making a very unique claim her. By 'very unique claim' I mean this view is not held by others whose views are considered orthodox. At least, I've never heard this claim before. And to answer my own question...No he doesn't have Scriptural evidence for such a theory.
Then you didn't read the section. He does claim Scriptural evidence, and goes through a series of Scriptures to support his claim. It's an intriguing study. Ultimately, his logic and interpretive skills fail to substantiate his conclusions, but the both the arguments and their refutation turn on some subtle points (IMHO).
One might be wise to consider the criticism of Dr. Moller, written by members of his own denomination. This should eliminate the argument that it is a witch hunt. http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj16/clark.html http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/godchrist.php
Neither of these sites take on Moller's arguments. The first discuss some problems during Moller's tenure as leader in his denomination but I don't see where this doctrine is discussed. The second has nothing at all to do with Moller's teaching, or his denomination. Perhaps you copied down an incorrect URL?
I would think Philippians 2:5 - 8 would settle the issue (from the NASB95): 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. At some point in eternity past, He existed as God. He gave up that equality with God to take the form of a man.
Moller actually does take up this passage (Chapter 1 part 4.5) and argues that it shows that Jesus was the God-man before the incarnation, since the act of emptying cannot include adding something new (humanity).
NOTE: I'm not defending his point of view. I think he's clearly wrong. However, if you want to take this on, it would be wise to read his arguments first.
I read this in the Logos web page on this resource: ". . . I concede that even Pentecostals will find some of the things I wrote to be strange to what they used to believe." And so, I took this to be, at least in some respects, a unique perspective, not fully representative of Pentecostals, nor Pentecostal theology. (For something more representative I'd suggest Foundations of Pentecostal Theology.)
As others have suggested. If you're not satisfied, contact Logos and request a refund.
He is making a very unique claim her. By 'very unique claim' I mean this view is not held by others whose views are considered orthodox. At least, I've never heard this claim before. And to answer my own question...No he doesn't have Scriptural evidence for such a theory. Then you didn't read the section. He does claim Scriptural evidence, and goes through a series of Scriptures to support his claim. It's an intriguing study. Ultimately, his logic and interpretive skills fail to substantiate his conclusions, but the both the arguments and their refutation turn on some subtle points (IMHO). One might be wise to consider the criticism of Dr. Moller, written by members of his own denomination. This should eliminate the argument that it is a witch hunt. http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj16/clark.html http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/godchrist.php Neither of these sites take on Moller's arguments. The first discuss some problems during Moller's tenure as leader in his denomination but I don't see where this doctrine is discussed. The second has nothing at all to do with Moller's teaching, or his denomination. Perhaps you copied down an incorrect URL?
You are entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong. [:P] I did read the section. I fear you didn't read what I wrote carefully. I said he does not "have" Scriptural evidence. You countered that he "claims" Scriptural evidence. There is a big difference in what one has, and what one claims to have.
The first link addresses the radical nature of the movement as a whole, and Dr. Moller in particular. Matt 7:20
The second addresses a question Pastor Blevins asked.
Perhaps his teaching comes the closest to what the Mormons believe about God. Any other thoughts? Explanations?
Perhaps his teaching comes the closest to what the Mormons believe about God.
Personally I think Logos should publish a wide variety of materials which means that by definition they will be publishing material than many of us consider heretical. We need to have the same range of materials available in Logos that are available in paper IMHO availability in paper is a bigger threat to the average believer than a book being in Logos.
I guess the question is did you expect this to be Orthodox because it was in Logos or were your expectations set by other sources? Based on some research that I did on Moller I am not surprised that he has some unorthodox views he certainly has been engaged in a number of controversies.
(For something more representative I'd suggest Foundations of Pentecostal Theology.)
I agree that this is a good representation of Pentecostal Theology.
Its always kind of fun to read about this heretic or that heretic on a web site that seems geared toward a solid Evangelical audience which on a bad day is radically moderate and on a good day fundamentalist in their product selection. I wonder how many buyers would faint if Tillich or Suchocki or Bultmann were to appear as stand alone items for sale...[:(]
(For something more representative I'd suggest Foundations of Pentecostal Theology.) I agree that this is a good representation of Pentecostal Theology.
I just discovered that I already have this resource and have marked it to be read soon. Having been trained as a cessationist, I would be interested in seeing the arguments of someone who disagrees. I do find at least one of the main cessationist argument to be rather weak.
Its always kind of fun to read about this heretic or that heretic on a web site that seems geared toward a solid Evangelical audience which on a bad day is radically moderate and on a good day fundamentalist in their product selection. I wonder how many buyers would faint if Tillich or Suchocki or Bultmann were to appear as stand alone items for sale...
I would not faint or even be shocked, but I would probably pass.
I do find at least one of the main cessationist argument to be rather weak.
[Y][I] [:)]
I wonder how many buyers would faint if Tillich
I've been asking for Tillich for a long time. I rather enjoy reading from a wider variety of sources, not because I believe every one of them (They contradict each other all the time and sometimes contradict themselves. [:D] )
But I want to read titles that are at least moderately representative of some type of scholarship. I don't think every clown on the block should be printed just because their view is different from every one else's. If they did that I would write a systematic theology for broccoli [:O]
true story: My father-in-law was a pilot. A friend of mine tried to charter a flight to the North Pole with him. It seems my friend really believes the Earth is hollow and Shangrila is accessible through a hole in the North Pole. My father-in-law did not want to be in a plane with at 6000 ft altitude with a guy who was not grounded in reality. Some "heretics" I will tolerate, stupid broccoli theologians, I will not.
I KNEW I should have left that line out of my post! [8-|] You are elated, but I may be lynched by fellow IFBs (Independent Fundamental Baptists).
It maybe a while before Tillich appears Matthew...several more 18th centuy public domain items to publish...lol. The point being that what one theologians sees as heresy depends on where they stand and when they stand. Many mainstream theologians from the 20 and 21st century are simply not part of the Logos collection and are not even part of the conversation such as the one in this thread. Heresy in the Christian tradition is real but its just kind of fun sometimes just to see what gets folks upset in cyberspace.
I would recommend reading two books by Dr. Jack Deere, a former cessationist and professor from Dallas Seminary: Surprised by the voice of God and Surprised by the Spirit of God.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntt=Jack+Deere+&N=0&Ntk=keywords&action=Search&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1&search=
He addresses these issues as one who used to hold to Cessationsim very strongly.
Having been trained as a cessationist
The early part of my journey was with cessationists although this was a position I think that most of them had reached through tradition and limited experience rather than being a well formed doctrinal position. No one talked about the gifts ceasing in fact they did not really talk about the gifts at all just the fruit. Personally the one aspect of cessationist teaching I would probably agree with is that an emphasis of the gifts over character (the fruit) can create an explosive and potentially explosive mix!
but I may be lynched by fellow IFBs
Hi Jack
Been good knowing you, could be time to change denominations!!!
Well, actually, after serving as pastor of IFBs for over 20 years, I am now a member of an SBC congregation, but please don't tell any of my former peers. [:D]
While I have a certain sympathy for what you say here, I believe Logos does an excellent job of supplying non-evangelical scholarship, including critical scholarship. There are works by Wedderburn, Lüdemann, Conzelmann, Pervo, Schurer, Dibelius, Vermes, Pannenberg, Lemche, Davies, Thompson, Silberman, Finkelstein, Whitelam, just for a start. Logos provides dozens of works from Sheffield Press (known for its critical rather than confessional scholarship, and certainly way off the evangelical road), and a large number of the JSOTS/JSNTS resources, which are anything but Fundamentalist.
I thought this was done. However, Jonathan I see the endless debate on just how good (nay great) Logos is sort of like arguing the nature of the color blue. Pick out 10, 15, 20, perhaps even 30 complete works out of thousands of those provided by the ebook publisher and this proves that the trajectory of material produced and the target audience is something other than Evangelical in content. I ask myself is looking up all these authors worth pursuing at this point. Not really my point is made and the discussion on heresy of a Pentecostal systematic theologian seems at an end I suppose.
Pick out 10, 15, 20, perhaps even 30 complete works out of thousands of those provided by the ebook publisher and this proves that the trajectory of material produced and the target audience is something other than Evangelical in content.
Oh by no means would I say that. The vast amount of material published by Logos very definitely follows very mainstream evangelical lines. But what else would we expect? That material constitutes the vast majority of commentary published, and the largest market. My only point was that Logos does not neglect critical scholarship outside the mainstream evangelical trajectory.
As a percentage of critical scholarship available, Logos actually offers a significant amount. The number of Sheffield Press/JSOTS/JSNTS material Logos publishes is more than sufficient evidence for that alone.
I ask myself is looking up all these authors worth pursuing at this point.
Undoubtedly, unless you want to confine yourself to the mainstream evangelical trajectory. I choose not to.
I should also make mention of the Continental Commentary Series, Semeia, and Hermeneia (all three of which I use every time I look up a passage). The amount of critical scholarship published by Logos, as a percentage of mainstream critical scholarship, is actually far from marginal.
<{[deleted]}>
http://www.logos.com/product/8047/hermeneia-and-continental-commentaries
